TheInspiration

Public Enemy - Welcome to the Terrordrome

Bramble's really inconsistent which is why giving him a long-term contract is a big risk, and why saying he's been showing improvements recently is too, as we've seen it many times before. And that's a big problem. I think a lot of the time he gets criticised more harshly than the likes of Ramage because we all know he actually has the ability to put in some superb performances and has all the attributes to be a top Premiership defender. The season must come to an end before any decision regarding his future is made. Until recently I would have thought he's had enough chances, but it would be unfair to shun him out in favour of a player like Ramage, simply on the basis he's had far more chances. Ramage is clearly not good enough and has been at fault for quite a few more goals this season than Bramble. Neither are particularly bad footballers, but sadly aren't good enough for a club of our (supposed) aspirations, however unfortunately we'll be no doubt working on a tight budget again this summer, so can't afford hald a dozen new defenders.

Yeah I know... well I hoped anyway.

Post of the day tbh. tosser of the day tbh Gee, thanks.

Post of the day tbh.

I wouldn't be too delighted if someone gave me a sheet of cardboard with letters on it tbf. Do you think they'll let us laminate it before it goes in the trophy cabinet? Probably, as they probably cost about a tenner to make and they must have plenty of them.

Blind Guardian - I'm Alive

They will come at us, but the counter-attack will be our friend if their defence is as bad as it was yesterday.

I wouldn't be too delighted if someone gave me a sheet of cardboard with letters on it tbf.

Yeah I don't think that's the only time's he said that... Gotta admit, Sibierski and Martins is a much better partnership. Martins scored a fantastic solo goal and a great striker's finish, but Sib produced two lovely assists. Both been top players in Europe too.

I reckon he'll start carr at left back, bad decision IMO I agree, Nobby is more than capable of filling the role, and better if you ask me. Anyone is tbh.

Yup, Butt's been our best midfielder this season.

He's an average manager - no better, no worse. He's certainly not "the right man for the job" (the best possible manager we could get is that I assume?), but him leaving now would be completely pointless.

That is definitely true, and I actually think there may be times people lie to themselves, or may have been hallucinating possibly. I can't understand how it would answer all sorts of questions regarding such experiences. I have heard and seen a huge number of cases where people have had a really "big" meet with God. Today a friend of mine said he was at a talk with some other people where a man who used to be one of the biggest gangsters in east London became a Christian. He used to hurt and probably kill people and earn millions. He now lives in a small house with his wife (who he used to beat up and also became a Christian). He'd seen some pretty horrid things in his time, but when he had a big calling he became a Christian and having God in his life had such an immense change to it. He lives his life for God, despite what he used to be and all he's been through. Now I'm afraid, those things don't happen every day. Similarly, not every "miracle" that takes place can be a healing from God - there's reasons for this. Yet these happen all over the world every day and it's a big big risk to deny it all as being healing from God. I'm not sure what some atheists might perceive religious experience - it strikes me from what I've read by various people, that they think an imaginary voice must say random things in some Christians' heads maybe once or twice in their lifetimes. Dawkins went on to say the Yorkshire Ripper was told to kill someone by Jesus - I think he might be missing the point somewhat in that Christianity is based on subjective relationships with God, not just the belief he exists and will help you. I'm sure I could really go on but chances are would make myself look ridiculous.

I reckon Milner wouldn't be a bad "attacking" centre-mid - ofters more going forward than Parker. He seems to stay too wide for a winger - that being because his game normally revolves around receiving a pass, beating a full-back, then delivering a cross that goes out for a throw-in/goal-kick.

I generally didn;t want another debate to spark up again, but in response to Renton's pervious question - if God really is omnipotent, 14 billion years would be nothing to him. I can't prove that we did/did not evolve in that time, but there's a lot of evidence for it. Similarly there are scientists who reject it, and they aren;t all Christians either. The universe is massive, but I've stated earlier there could be other planets with life on as well - there's no reason to believe the universe was made just to suit us. If you look at it the other way, what is the likeliness that an explosion would randomly create this giant universe, which expanded from within an extremely dense and hot singularity? So, like how there are questions scientists cannot answer about our world, there are obviously those religious followers can't once they look at the facts, and don't take the Bible as solid fact. Too many people believe they are just scientifically ignorant, while at the same time forget how many Christians are scientists. Maybe too many atheists are ignorant of relevation, or haven't gotten to know enough decent Christians and instead focus on the really foolish ones, when basing an opinion? They're quick to tell people they've not experienced God in whatever way, and that's just their mind tricking them etc - what would make you so certain? For the record I'm fascinated by science, but there needs more discoveries and truth behind it before it hinders my beliefs. On the subject of Creationism, this is not taught instead of evolution, but alternatively. It may not be true but it being taught isn't my concern - it should be taught in an unbiased way though, simply as a theory. I'm probably ignorant of its effects, so what are they? As for Dawkins, I've read/skim read quite a bit of his most recent book, and I've seen TV programmes by him. I'm not "scared" of him, and may read more of his work in the future. I accept some of his points, but don't agree with a lot of others, which seemed to me to highlight his lack of knowledge of faith in God. The fact plenty of theists worldwide have read his book and slated it, would argue against them being scared of him - and then there have been plenty of atheists/agnostics who have slated it as well.

Yeah he's such a horrible person than Zog bloke.

Ashton's a very talented player, but he needs to score a fair few more goals. Curbishley.

I want Charlton to stay up - not too bothered about West Ham tbh but don't really like them much.

Well I hope that's the case. On the subject of Zog being a young prospect, it's criminal he was on the bench for Duff. Aas a result when he did play, his form suffered.

What's with all the complaining? Luque didn't put a foot wrong all match.

Terrorists who truly believe a place in paradise awaits. Barbaric mysoginy of Islam. Sectarian conflicts worldwide. Bishops in the house of lords. Presidents who consult God before starting wars. Faith schools teaching creationism. Churches wanting exemptions from laws to be able to preach bigotry. Anti-abortion campaigns. Anti-condom campaigns relating to AIDS. Anti-contraception campaigns in the third world which increase poverty. Anti-stem cell research campaigns. Child abuse with related cover-ups. Being told I have no morals because I'm an Atheist. Despite my denial of its existence many theists "hope and pray" I will burn in hell for eternity - what a very generous notion for a fellow human. Thats my list off the top of my head - as for Dawkins I think he feels the "dismissal" of evolution (which isn't exclusive to the USA) to be a huge crime which I agree with but feel he doesn't go far enough with the above. I think you've got good points on the whole there. I don't see how teaching creationism is really going to hurt anyone, and do you think Bush would definitely not go to war had he not believed he was told by God to? It's easy to criticise mad people in religion - it's something religious followers will do all the time. There are a lot of aspects of religion I could be critical of. I think Patrokles has got it spot on - he's not argued from any biased viewpoint, and stated it how it is. Scientists cause a lot of evil with their works. Atheists can be incredibly rude and hypocritical - in many cases you can make similar cases about such people as you can for religious followers. Note how I said atheists as opposed to atheism - some people seem to get the idea religion is the root of all evil. That is like saying religion actually encourages it, and also if it didn't exist, there would be no evil at all. One of your reasons was that you hate being told you have no morals because you're an atheist. Now anyone who follows the religious teachings properly would tell you that is not the way to go. That said, I can still make comments like hating being called stupid for following a religion - shall I hate atheism? Of course not. Richard Dawkins had a blasphemy challenge on his website - inviting people to uplod videos of themselves blaspheming simply for fun sounds like a lovely thing to do - does he therefore think he is free to criticise people not following morals from religious texts when he wouldn't either? There are plenty of really silly people in religion who will do exactly what their religion tells them not to do. Shall I start disliking Christianity for it? Being hostile to the people is a whole lot different to attacking the religion and all its followers. At the same time as attacking religion, people always either deliberately ignore the many good things coming out of it, or are just ignorant of it. I think there's more than enough good things it brings (and by that I don't mean "gives people hope" etc.) than to at least not despise it...

Nope - must have a low opinion of theists then. I brought him up because he is the most prominent figure in atheism and I was unsure as to why he was so obsessed. That is all.

I agree that its "possible" that there is a God who oversees more than one planet or indeed the universe but as I've said before thats not the God most people believe in. The major religions betray theie "gang-forming" roots by emphasising the "one true faith" and "chosen" parts of their dogma which makes their gang pretty small for this planet let alone any other possible planets. On your second point we've come a long way in the past 50 years in understanding the universe but nobody denies theres still some huge questions. I read today that a landmark in the building of CERN has been reached which will hopefully provide more answers. We should have hope and dare I say it faith that we will be able to find these answers - what we should not do is give up and just say "something bigger than us did it". No of course we should not give up hope, but do theists really start believing in God because there are further explanations needed? Many struggle with such questions while at the same time hold a strong belief and faith - it's not as if they don't question their religion a lot. The majority of Christians will be convinced to go further down to personal experience and the like. It's something personal, so it can't really be wiped away by someone who has no experience imo. I think until there are many more big, important questions that are answered with a very viable theory, then there is no need for the "the idea of God is nonsensical"-esque responses. Can I also ask why is there such hostility and need for outright attacks on religious followers? And don't such people often whine about people shoving religion down their throats? This is what I don't understand about people like Dawkins - did they have a bad experience when it came to religion? It seems it doesn't take long on this forum before Christians get portrayed negatively in a post (in which it isn't long before religion being stupid is also stated), when it's because of a small minority and the majority of Christians are all good people.

In response to the first question, I don't see why if there is a God there cannot be life on other planets. I wouldn't see why our miniscule part of the universe has to be the only important part. I don't really want to debate religion versus science here, by the way. There are many questions about Christianity I like to ask as I cannot answer them myself. Just a curious question - how would the Big Bang randomly create such a whopping massive universe from nothing? It's easy to not believe in God. I myself believe in the Big Bang as it is a logical way to start the universe, but that brings questions such as what existed before, and how it happened as it needed a cause etc.